Stability. Security. The peace of mind that comes from being able to get a decent job and provide for your family, in a country that you feel has a good future ahead of it and that treats people fairly.

*Note the Blairite tone, verbless sentences, if sentences they can be called, in an outdated red-top newspaper style from the 1980s.

In a nutshell, that is what people in Britain want – and what the Government I lead is dedicated to building.

Britain – our economy, our security, our future – must come first. After a deep and damaging recession, and our involvement in long and difficult conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is hardly surprising that so many people say to me when seeing the tragedies unfolding on their television screens: “Yes, let’s help with aid, but let’s not get any more involved.”

I agree that we should avoid sending armies to fight or occupy.

*Does he? See if he sticks to this later on, after most readers will have peeled off, reassured that British troops (apparently) won’t be sent back to Iraq.

But we need to recognise that the brighter future we long for requires a long-term plan for our security as well as for our economy.

*Is this in fact true? Surely we only increase or safeguard our security if our actions do not make new enemies, and do not needlessly expose our soldiers to death or injury? He is making the case for intervention before he has explained precisely why it is justified in this place.

True security will only be achieved if we use all our resources – aid, diplomacy, our military prowess – to help bring about a more stable world. Today, when every nation is so immediately interconnected, we cannot turn a blind eye and assume that there will not be a cost for us if we do.

*What ‘military prowess’ ? Is the Prime Minister unaware of the enormous cuts he himself has made in the Army and the Navy? 'To the bone' is inadequate to describe them. He has cut deep *into* the bone. Does he not realise that many of the most experienced officers and NCOs have left as a result, and that plans to make up the gap with reserves have run into serious trouble?

The creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria is not a problem miles away from home.

*Actually it may well be such a problem, or at least one we have managed to cope with before. The word ‘extremist’ is notoriously subjective, but many people would regard the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (and of some of the Gulf States too) as being 'extremist’ by the standards of 21st-century western law-governed democracies. A case could be made for classifying the People’s Republic of China as ‘extremist’ , and I personally think the word could be applied to Turkey’s new President Erdogan. Well, Mr Cameron and his colleagues cannot keep away from Peking, and Prince Charles is often in the Gulf. We seem to have found a modus vivendi with Pakistan. Are we as fussy as we claim to be? We have in the past had to come to accommodations with all kinds of people we much disliked, but didn’t have the power to remove, notably the Russian Bolsheviks. Oil-producing countries need customers, and oil-consuming countries need sellers. In the past they have tended to overcome strong dislike.

Nor is it a problem that should be defined by a war 10 years ago.

* This is one of the key points of the article. What it means is ‘because the 2003 Iraq war (which the Tories supported) was a catastrophe, there’s no reason to think that this one will be. Well, the pretext is different – atrocities rather than WMD. But action to prevent atrocities can be limited to that, which is why Mr Cameron is trying to widen the issue to national security.

It is our concern here and now. Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain.

*This is highly questionable. Much the same thing was said for years, to justify our pointless engagement in Afghanistan. Why precisely should the Islamic State want to target the streets of Britain? I'm not saying it won't, just that 'd like to know why it should. Please show your working.

We already know that it has the murderous intent. Indeed, the first Isil-inspired terrorist acts on the continent of Europe have already taken place.

*Could you, or anybody, please say which acts these were?

Our first priority has of course been to deal with the acute humanitarian crisis in Iraq. We should be proud of the role that our brave armed services and aid workers have played in the international effort. British citizens have risked their lives to get 80 tons of vital supplies to the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar. It is right that we use our aid programme to respond rapidly to a situation like this: Britain has given £13 million to support the aid effort. We also helped to plan a detailed international rescue operation and we remain ready and flexible to respond to the ongoing challenges in or around Dahuk, where more than 450,000 people have increased the population by 50 per cent.

* Excellent. Who could object? But, as we now see, humanitarian relief is somehow not enough.

But a humanitarian response alone is not enough. We also need a broader political, diplomatic and security response.

*Why, exactly? This seems to me to an unsupported assertion.

For that, we must understand the true nature of the threat we face. We should be clear: this is not the “War on Terror”, nor is it a war of religions. It is a struggle for decency, tolerance and moderation in our modern world. It is a battle against a poisonous ideology that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

*In what important way does this differ from the “War on Terror” or a war of religions, except that these ideas are discredited and he does not want to be associated with them?

What is a battle against an ideology? How do you do that? Also, if this ideology is condemned by all faiths (including the one the ISIS militants follow with such zeal and passion), then why do they continue to behave as they do?

Of course there is conflict between Shias and Sunnis, but that is the wrong way to see what is really happening. What we are witnessing is actually a battle between Islam on the one hand and extremists who want to abuse Islam on the other. These extremists, often funded by fanatics living far away from the battlefields, pervert the Islamic faith as a way of justifying their warped and barbaric ideology – and they do so not just in Iraq and Syria but right across the world, from Boko Haram and al-Shabaab to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

*Interesting. Who precisely are these ‘fanatics living far from the battlefield’?

So this threat cannot simply be removed by airstrikes alone. We need a tough, intelligent and patient long-term approach that can defeat the terrorist threat at source.

First, we need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go after the terrorists,

*So military action is, after all, being considered. See above.

international co-operation on intelligence and counter-terrorism or uncompromising action against terrorists at home. On Friday we agreed with our European partners that we will provide equipment directly to the Kurdish forces; we are now identifying what we might supply, from body armour to specialist counter-explosive equipment.

*What about actual weapons? And what about allowing Kurdistan to sell its oil on the world market, which it is presently banned from doing? Could it be that we are coy or reluctant because we are afraid of what will happen if we allow Kurdistan to become fully independent of Baghdad? Not surprising if so. An armed and oil-rich Kurdistan would cause major destabilisation of the whole region. Iran and what is left of Iraq would be very reluctant to allow such a thing, and Turkey’s attitude cannot be predicted. Yet it is hard to see how such a thing can now be avoided.

We have also secured a United Nations Security Council resolution to disrupt the flows of finance to Isil, sanction those who are seeking to recruit for it and encourage countries to do all they can to prevent foreign fighters joining the extremist cause.

Here in Britain we have recently introduced stronger powers through our Immigration Act to deprive naturalised Britons of their citizenship if they are suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. We have taken down 28,000 pieces of terrorist-related material from the web, including 46 Isil-related videos. And I have also discussed the police response to this growing threat of extremism with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. The position is clear. If people are walking around with Isil flags or trying to recruit people to their terrorist cause, they will be arrested and their materials will be seized. We are a tolerant people, but no tolerance should allow the room for this sort of poisonous extremism in our country.

*This is just flailing with gestures, and quite possibly a general threat to civil liberties as well. Laws of this kind are either ineffectual and hard to enforce because they are too vague, or a danger to everyone because they have to contain catch-all clauses which give the police and the courts huge power over the individual.

Alongside a tough security response, there must also be an intelligent political response. We know that terrorist organisations thrive where there is political instability and weak or dysfunctional political institutions. So we must support the building blocks of democracy – the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the rights of minorities, free media and association and a proper place in society for the army. None of these things can be imposed by the West.

*Well, isn’t it odd, in that case, that we have just collaborated with the Ayatollahs in Teheran, in overthrowing Iraq’s democratically-elected Prime Minister? As for the ‘building blocks of democracy’ where, pray are they now in Libya, the country Mr Cameron so breezily ‘liberated’ a few years ago? And where are they in Egypt, whose hard-faced and repressive military junta we support? I could go on. Surely it is time that this idealist guff was dropped?

Every country must make its own way. But we can and must play a valuable role in supporting them to do that.

*Or we can make a terrible mess, by intervening without understanding or knowledge, and with an exaggerated idea of our skill and power.

Isil militants have exploited the absence of a unified and representative government in Baghdad. So we strongly welcome the opportunity of a new start with Iraqi Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi. I spoke to him earlier this week and assured him that we will support any attempts to forge a genuinely inclusive government that can unite all Iraqi communities – Sunnis, Shias and Kurds – against the common enemy of Isil, which threatens the way of life of them all.

The international community will rally around this new government. But Iraq’s neighbours in the region are equally vital. So we must work with countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the UAE, Egypt and Turkey against these extremist forces, and perhaps even with Iran, which could choose this moment to engage with the international community against this shared threat. I want Britain to play a leading role in this diplomatic effort. So we will be appointing a Special Representative to the Kurdistan Regional Government and using the Nato summit in Wales and the United Nations General Assembly in New York to help rally support across the international community.

*Why no mention of Syria? Syria is a vital part of the battlefield against ISIS, and if Syria fell to ISIS the whole politics of the Mediterranean and the Levant would indeed to be transformed. Apart form anything else, ISIS would then have a border with Israel, and incredibly dangerous point of friction.

ISIS is to a great extent our fault. It grew out of the destabilisation of Syria, which Western countries began as long ago as 2011 for reasons best known to themselves, and which was then reinforced by Gulf-supported foreign fighters overwhelmingly made up of Sunni fanatics. The idea that there is a ‘moderate’ rebel force in Syria is a fantasy. Even where the non-Wahhabi rebels disagree with ISIS, they are too weak to resist it, and must do what it says and hand over their weapons to it on demand.

Finally, while being tough and intelligent, we must also be patient and resolute. We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology, which I believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime.

*This prediction is particularly disturbing. Why should this country be committed to a war which our own Premier says cannot be ended in his lifetime

We face in Isil a new threat that is single-minded, determined and unflinching in pursuit of its objectives. Already it controls not just thousands of minds, but thousands of square miles of territory, sweeping aside much of the boundary between Iraq and Syria to carve out its so-called caliphate. It makes no secret of its expansionist aims. Even today it has the ancient city of Aleppo firmly within its sights. And it boasts of its designs on Jordan and Lebanon, and right up to the Turkish border. If it succeeds, we would be facing a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a Nato member.

This is a clear danger to Europe and to our security. It is a daunting challenge. But it is not an invincible one, as long as we are now ready and able to summon up the political will to defend our own values and way of life with the same determination, courage and tenacity as we have faced danger before in our history. That is how much is at stake here: we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.

Hitchens’s first rule of political rhetoric is as follows: Whenever a politician says there is no choice or no alternative, he or she means that there is a choice or an alternative, but that they hope nobody will notice. The alternative at the moment is resolute humanitarian action to save the persecuted, combined with extreme and patient caution over deeper involvement. And by patient I don't mean an unending war against an idea we don't like. The more that Mr Cameron talks of our ‘values and way of life’, whatever he means by that, the faster the rest of us should count our spoons. General, foggy dangers of this kind are a) beyond the power of governments to combat or overcome and b) risk a state of permament idealist war in which there is never any objective point at which victory (or defeat) can be declared.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Perhaps we should take heart that Mr Cameron's 'political lifetime' won't endure much past the next election. The troops - sorry, the aid workers - will then be home by Christmas, rather than by Christmas 2066.

This would also be good for him. His name won't then become an expletive like that of a former premier.

Of course the aid workers might just decide to stay there. Who wouldn't stay in the free, prosperous, secure, democratic wonderland to be created? It sounds far better than whatever decrepit Britain could ever be transformed into, even with fifty lush garden cities and suburbia coast to coast. If quizzed, the government could then claim that the aid workers were still there, not because of any unfinished business or the failure of the policy of intervention, but because they had just decided to take their retirement in paradise.

I've still no idea what you are talking about. The whole EU enterprise from beginning to its desired end is public knowledge of a patently transparent kind. The hushed conversations at the watercoolers and the nudging and winking in the corridors are internal politics and of no interest.

"You've again asserted that the EU is a "legitimate" goal without any "evil" intentions. Really, according to whom?"

What?? I said that the EU's goal of a United States of Europe is a perfectly legitimate goal, just as the American colonies' goal of a United States of America was a perfectly legitimate goal. What bearing has a "whom?" got on anything? These are patently obvious facts.

The only issues that need concern the member states are 1) will the United Sates of Europe be constituted on broadly similar lines to the USA, on the grounds that the American system works well?, and 2) do the member states want to be a part of such a federal union?

"Actually Mr P - I know what you're doing - which is why I inserted the remark about Daniel Hannan and the sales pitch - someone who purports to be something that he isn't."

The first point is as clear as it possibly can be., but, once again, you predictably reply with a tautology. You again assert that the purpose of the EU is "public knowledge" (In the UK, Lisbon was touted as a "tidying up exercise." Sweet !) - and I've pointed out that the nations "who held" referenda on the Constitution/Lisbon rejected this direction - unequivocally. Unsurprisingly, this rejection was then absurdly "interpreted" by the Eurocrats as those populations being ill-informed and what they were really crying out for was more EU control .

So which is it - a knowledgeable public democratically rejecting this phase of "transition" - or do you accept the EU's line and their claims that those who rejected the Constitution were really ill-informed and actually want more ?

You've again asserted that the EU is a "legitimate" goal without any "evil" intentions. Really, according to whom ? You have to define what is legitimate and what is evil - and of course - this naturally falls into the realm of opinion and personal ethics. "Ever closer union" can be interpreted as a never ending process(which is the evasive purpose). But when has or does ANY "leader" ever speak of an endgame - that being a centralised non-accountable executive (The Commission, which is what we have) with vassals managed on their behalf - assuming you agree that is the EU's well known purpose ?

Actually Mr P - I know what you're doing - which is why I inserted the remark about Daniel Hannan and the sales pitch - someone who purports to be something that he isn't.

America verses Europe
America was federalised starting basically from a blank canvas. Once the Indians and The first settlers were killed in the genicidal war that had not a thing to do with abolishing slavery. Today America has become the new Europe .In fact the one the early settlers came to avoid the persecutions of old Europe .
That's Irony for it invited the groups responsible for all of that strife in Old Europe to settle there
Europe entirely different . Language for one .Settled folk with Nationalist feelings another plus a legion of currencies. The sort of management needed to supplant these historical facts .Needed to be millitarily strong deceitful or both. The EU as it is now is seen to be deceitful, Militarily weak by a growing number, if not a majority.
You seem content to accept the current set up.
But it is not in any way similar to America. Just the bottom line being put as the most important part .In that they are the same . The lust for wealth.

You lost me. What was the point of your comment? My point was that a United States of Europe is not of itself an evil goal towards which the present European Union perforce must work in smoke-filled cellars. It is a perfectly legitimate goal, a natural development one could say of previous cultural fragmentation finding common cause in the global age.

The only questions to be addressed concern the wishes of those national cultural identities as regards the common cause. We in Britain, at least I surmise most of we in Britain, do not want to lose what we have come to understand as the 'British way of life', little of it that remains, granted. We want to rule our own affairs, make our own laws, administer our own culture. Call it an island mentality, but that's just the way it is.

I agree with the overall theme of your analysis. My point was that the EU is not two things at the same time, viz. a public face, white as white can be, and a secret face, dark as dark can be, and "conspiring" to plunge a hapless European population into some species of slavery. That is just ridiculous.

The goal of the EU is public knowledge, argued over and over in all the media. The ancient Common Market has morphed into the modern European Union, which Europhiles hope will morph into a United Sates of Europe. This is what the public debate is all about. Everyone knows Clegg and Co, Miliband and Cameron too, are soft-pedalling their propaganda towards that goal. The success of Ukip in recent elections tells me that the public are not hoodwinked by the 'plot'.

Anyhow, this 'conspiracy' point is getting a bit over-debated and I guess I'll leave it there.

There is in principal nothing sinister or evil in a United States of Europe provided it operates politically along the lines of the United States of America, with semi-autonomous states, a federal oversight authority and a system of state and national politics, the balance of which the US has got pretty much right. This would be contingent upon the nation states of Europe agreeing to such a federation. Perhaps in time such a federation can be made to work to everyone's contentment, but that eventuality is a long way off and the period of transition will be wholly undemocratic and possibly dictatorial, a transition trauma that I would not be prepared to witness or be a part of."

Nice little sales pitch - and one with which we've become very familiar. You appear though, somewhat concerned about the democratic element and whether people can be suitably satisfied during this "transition". Aren't you aware that this transition is in progress (of course you are) - and discontentment has been shown on several occasions in referenda ion the Constitutional Treaty (sorry, Lisbon) ?

And you end your pitch with :

"Thus, notwithstanding a desire to see preserved what's left of 'Britishness', little that it is, I am against working towards a federal Europe."

Of course you are - just as the even handed and considered "sceptic" Daniel Hannan is also against a federal Europe.

I too have read the Booker and North work. I don't disagree that if you know the history of the EU it is clear that federalism is its goal. But it is not necessarily the case that the Europhiles broadcast this at every opportunity. As Booker and North made clear, they have learnt to downplay the explicitly pro-federal comments. This is especially true in Britain. The Europhiles in Britain are almost never upfront about this end of the project. If you asked Clegg or Miliband or Cameron, they would never admit it, nor does the Guardian or the BBC.

And the EU does make use of underhanded links to further its goals of integration. As Booker and North, again, make clear, it has long been part of its plans to use clandestine connections like those I mentioned earlier to increase integration and prevent it being stopped. There precisely is a backroom, secretive agenda at work. It could be called a conspiracy (ignoring silly definitions of the term), but it is admittedly looser and more diffuse than the situations sometimes conjured up by that term.

I agree with you, but it's not a conspiracy concocted by evil-doers in smoke-filled cellars. It has been written about for years. We all know it. The recent appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker was opposed by Cameron precisely because Juncker is a federalist. None of this is a secret. I read the Booker and North book years ago. I have read numerous variants of the same tale. What on earth is there left to conspire about?

There is in principal nothing sinister or evil in a United States of Europe provided it operates politically along the lines of the United States of America, with semi-autonomous states, a federal oversight authority and a system of state and national politics, the balance of which the US has got pretty much right. This would be contingent upon the nation states of Europe agreeing to such a federation. Perhaps in time such a federation can be made to work to everyone's contentment, but that eventuality is a long way off and the period of transition will be wholly undemocratic and possibly dictatorial, a transition trauma that I would not be prepared to witness or be a part of. Thus, notwithstanding a desire to see preserved what's left of 'Britishness', little that it is, I am against working towards a federal Europe.

Posted by: Paul P | 23 August 2014 at 07:22 PM:
"@Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth | 23 August 2014 at 04:32 PM
"In fact, I seem to remember that all the "EU" pamphlets prior to the vote on the Common Market clearly explained that we were voting to join, not a Common Market, but an ever closer (and irreversible) bureaucratically controlled political (and fiscal) union."
You remember incorrectly. The vote in 1975 was to join......."

Can I suggest that the next time you're on Wikipedia you look up "sarcasm".

It is simply not the case that the EU trumpets all the sort of underhanded, backroom links and projects I have referred to. Certainly, the British defenders of the EU rarely elude to them.

And, yes, I do think the EU has sinister intent. It was quickly grasped by the EU federalists, right back in the 50s, that being somewhat cagey about their end goals would help in achieving them. Those like Jean Monnet were most interested in political union, but they used economic ties to try to bind the nations of Europe together so that one day they would be able to achieve their dream of a United States of Europe.

"In fact, I seem to remember that all the "EU" pamphlets prior to the vote on the Common Market clearly explained that we were voting to join, not a Common Market, but an ever closer (and irreversible) bureaucratically controlled political (and fiscal) union."

You remember incorrectly. The vote in 1975 was to join a common market in which the stultifying paralysis of national bureaucracies was to be swept away from the field of capitalist play. Unfortunately not enough of us had read Parkinson's Law. Parkinson understood that that's not what bureaucrats do - sweep themselves away. They instead increase in number like the creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water - to borrow from H G Wells. Far from sweeping themselves away they have multiplied a hundredfold, and they will continue multiplying to a thousandfold and then a millionfold until every man jack of us is an EU bureaucrat, at which point the new paralysis will be complete.

At this point in the paralysis of national life, looking left or looking right, breathing in or breathing out, will be the subject of an EU directive. You might want to paint your front door red or blue. Forget it. The EU will have a directive covering that. Ridiculous? I think not. We saw yesterday that vacuum cleaners have now come within the shooting range of the EU's environmental fanatics. It won't stop there. Before long you'll need black-market candles to supplement the dim light from your powered-down electrical supply. I expect the EU will soon direct that the National Grid be run at 12v. They have already got rid of perfectly serviceable power stations. It's just a matter of time before they get rid of all of them.

Recycling bins in every colour you can think of now cover a larger footprint than many houses. Entire house frontages and front gardens are littered with them. That will only get worse as the EU require households to separate every piece of waste into its material components. Each house will have a hundred re-cycling bins and householders will be employed round the clock sorting through the components. Economies will collapse because no one has the time to go to work.

This Age of Lunacy will and must pass, but it won't be in my lifetime.

Posted by: Paul P | 21 August 2014 at 10:48 AM
"@John: I don't think you understand what a conspiracy is. A conspiracy is a plot, usually planned in secret, by two or more individuals to commit a crime. Whatever the failings of the EU, and there are many, and whatever the Machiavellian politics behind its ambition to reach its goals, it is not a criminal organisation intent on committing crimes."
"A 'conspiracy theory', then, must follow the gathering of compelling evidence that the conspirators were, or are, intent on committing a crime or crimes. Please would you present your evidence that the EU was, or is, intent on committing crimes."

Posted by: Paul P | 21 August 2014 at 05:03 PM:
"@John > 'On conspiracy theories, your point relies on the questionable and unsupported contention a conspiracy theory must involve a strict legal conspiracy.'
Well yes, otherwise words mean what the speaker/writer wants them to mean. Conspiracy is defined to mean a plot by two or more individuals to commit a crime. Would you like it to mean something else?"

Posted by: Paul P | 23 August 2014 at 12:25 PM:
"@John > 'My usage of the term was supposed to be pejorative.'
Well exactly - the reason I took issue.
> 'Essentially, the EU does work behind the scenes to greatly further its goals of greater integration, culminating one day in a federal state.'
I agree with this opinion, but it is not a conspiracy. It is a well-known goal of the EU and is central to the arguments against the organisation, arguments aired continually in books, newspapers, this blog, TV programmes, talk shows, conversations at dinner tables. The underhandedness of the EU's stratagems is simply Machiavellian politics. It is not conspiracy.
Your use of the word 'conspiracy' was to slant the reader's perception of the EU's backroom politics as vaguely criminal in nature, or at the very least suggest evilness in the works."

So, all the EU's funding of its propaganda in the UK is to spread the word that it's working towards ever closer (and irreversible) bureaucratically controlled political (and fiscal) union.

In fact, I seem to remember that all the "EU" pamphlets prior to the vote on the Common Market clearly explained that we were voting to join, not a Common Market, but an ever closer (and irreversible) bureaucratically controlled political (and fiscal) union.

And how often do we hear that Germany hasn't invaded anywhere since the second world war because of the discussions about the European Coal And Steel Community (although it had fomented the Balkan Wars).

Actually, some might describe the EC&SC/Common Market/EEC/EU as a fraudulent operation, which would, actually, mean it DOES fall within your original (personal) definition of a "criminal organisation intent on committing crimes".

"Essentially, the EU does work behind the scenes to greatly further its goals of greater integration, culminating one day in a federal state."

I agree with this opinion, but it is not a conspiracy. It is a well-known goal of the EU and is central to the arguments against the organisation, arguments aired continually in books, newspapers, this blog, TV programmes, talk shows, conversations at dinner tables. The underhandedness of the EU's stratagems is simply Machiavellian politics. It is not conspiracy.

Your use of the word 'conspiracy' was to slant the reader's perception of the EU's backroom politics as vaguely criminal in nature, or at the very least suggest evilness in the works. You consider yourself fractionally scholarly in mental disposition so I was disappointed to note a flagrant piece of polemicism in your analysis.

@Paul Taylor,I read your posting on the CIA,ISIL and Iraq.You need not have bothered though,most of us who do a little research understand what is happening.The CIA are well known for trying or succeeding to overthrow governments all over the world.It has been going on almost every year for the past 65 years.

The habitual conspiracy theorists may think that they are the "wise old goats" and everyone else is just a bunch of sheep, but oh well.... Anyway, the "sheep" might be interested in a cartoon drawn by the prominent Iranian artist, Mana Neyestani. You can find it by googling "One cartoon that captures the horrible truth about Assad and ISIS"
It should be mentioned that the Iranians have been supporting Assad to the hilt and without Iran's support it is unlikely that Assad would still be standing. As a critic of the Iranian government, this artist now lives in exile in France.
The point of the cartoon is that Assad has been deliberately ignoring ISIS so that eventually his critics will be left with the choice "Do you want me or ISIS?

It's an interesting point which does seem to be playing out. If the West, along with everyone else that feels threatened by ISIS (which is the rest of the middle east) were to try and defeat ISIS in Syria then Assad is still left standing. What a conundrum.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.